No More Learning

. . . . . . -- s-S 1-6 -- I-6 1 5
Written or Spoken Threats . . . . . . -- 1 4 1'2 -- '2 --2
Illegal Games . . . . . . . . . . . . -- I --8 -- 2 1 'I
Political Crimes and Offences . . . . . . 31. 7 -- --2 -- 4 2 --2
Press Crimes and Offences . . . . . . 4 4 --4 -- --6 --6
Embezzlement, Corruption, Malfeasance
of Public Functionaries -- --3 . 3 -- -- --
Escape from Detention --1 --2 2 -- --6 --6
False Witness . . . . . . . . . . . --7 2 --2 09 6 --6
Violation of Domicile . . . . . . . . . -- 17 . 15 -- lo --9
Calumny . . . --. --1 I 1 --oS --o8
Exposure, Palming or ``Suppression''
of Infants -- --12 1 --2 --1 --1
Bankruptcy Offences . . . . . . . . . I 1 --1 1'3 5 --6
Offences against Religion and Ministers
of Religion -- 1 --1 -- --7 . 07
Duelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -- . 04 . 03 -- -- --
Abortion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -- -- -- og -- --OI
Offences against the Game Laws -- -- -- -- 13 12-7
Drunkenness -- -- -- -- 1 5 1 5
Offences against Public Decency -- -- -- -- I-8 1. 7
Adultery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -- -- -- --5 5
Offences against Morality, with Incitement
to Immorality . . . . . . -- -- -- -- --2 --2
Involuntary Homicide -- -- -- -- --2 --2
'' Wounding -- -- -- -- --6 --6
'' Incendiarism -- -- -- -- --2 --2
Illegal Practising of Medicine and
Surgery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -- -- -- -- --2 --2
Frauds on Keepers of Refreshment
Houses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -- -- -- -- I-4 1 4
Rural Offences . . . . . . . . . . . . -- -- -- -- 6 --6
-- -- m
_________________________________________________________________________
_
Yearly Average of Convictions,
Gross Totals 6,273 43,584 49,857 3,300 163,997
167,297

[1] Devastation of crops, destruction of fences. [2] Unauthorised gaming
houses; secret lotteries. [3] An exceptional figure, owing to 528
convictions
in 1863, whilst the average of the other years was nine convictions.
[4] Electoral offences.



are 4 per cent. in Italy, touch 9 per cent in France.
Sexual crimes and offences (as we saw in the case of rape), such
as abortion, adultery, indecent assaults, and incitement to
immorality, which in Italy present very small and negligible
figures, are more frequent in France. Whilst the illegal carrying
of arms, threats, false witness, escape from detention, violations
of domicile, calumny, are of greater frequency in Italy than in
France, the contrary is true of bankruptcy offences, political and
press crimes and offences, on account of a manifest difference of
the moral, economic, and social conditions of the two countries,
which are plainly discernible behind these apparently dry figures.


In addition to this demonstration, we have given anthropological
and statistical proofs of the fundamental distinction between
habitual and occasional criminals, which had been pointed out by
many observers, but which had hitherto remained a simple assertion
without manifest consequences.

This same distinction ought to be not only the basis of all
sociological theory concerning crime, but also a point of
departure for other distinctions more precise and complete, which
I set forth in my previous studies on criminals, and which were
subsequently reproduced, with more or less of assent, by all
criminal sociologists.

In the first place, it is necessary to distinguish, amongst
habitual criminals, those who present a conspicuous and clinical
form of mental aberration, which accounts for their anti-social
activity.

In the second place, amongst habitual criminals who are not of
unsound mind, however little the inmates of prisons may have been
observed with adequate ideas and experience, there is a clear
indication of a class of individuals, physically or mentally
abnormal, induced to crime by inborn tendencies, which are
manifest from their birth, and accompanied by symptoms of extreme
moral insensibility. Side by side with these, another class
challenges attention, of individuals who have also been criminals
from childhood, and who continue to be so, but who are in a
special degree a product of physical and social environment, which
has persistently driven them into the criminal life, by their
abandonment before and after the first offence, and which,
especially in the great towns, is very often forced upon them by
the actual incitement of their parents.

Amongst occasional criminals, again, a special category is created
by a kind of exaggeration of the characteristics, mainly
psychological, of the type itself. In the case of all occasional
criminals, the crime is brought about rather by the effects of
environment than by the active tendencies of the individual; but
whilst in most of these individuals the deciding cause is only a
circumstance affecting all alike, with a few it is an exceptional
constraint of passion, a sort of psychological tempest, which
drives them into crime.

Thus, then, the entire body of criminals may be classed in five
categories, which as early as 1880 I described as criminal madmen,
born criminals, criminals by contracted habits, occasional
criminals, and criminals of passion.

As already observed, criminal anthropology will not finally
establish itself until it has been developed by biological,
psychological, and statistical monographs on each of these
categories, in such a manner as to present their anthropological
characteristics with greater precision than they have hitherto
attained. So far, observers continue to give us the same
characteristics for a large aggregate of criminals, classifying
them according to the form of their crime rather than according to
their bio-social type. In Lombroso's work, for instance, or in
that of Marro (and to some extent even in my work on homicide),
the characteristics are stated for a total, or for legal
categories of criminals, such as murderers, thieves, forgers, and
so on, which include born criminals, occasional and habitual
criminals, and madmen. The result is a certain measure of
inconsistency, according to the predominance of one type or the
other in the aggregate of criminals under observation. This also
contributes to render the conclusions of criminal anthropology
less evident.

Nevertheless, we may sum up the inquiries which have been made up
to the present time; and in particular we may now point out the
general characteristics of the five classes of criminals, in
accordance with my personal experience in the observation of
criminals. It is to be hoped that successive observations of a
more methodical kind will gradually reinforce the accuracy of this
classification of symptoms.

In the first place, it is evident that in a classification not
exclusively biological, if it is to form the anthropological basis
of criminal sociology, criminals of unsound mind must in all
fairness be included.

The usual objection, recently repeated by M. Joly (``Le Crime,''
p. 62), which holds the term ``criminal madness'' to be self-
contradictory, since a madman is not morally responsible, and
therefore cannot be a criminal, is not conclusive. We maintain
that responsibility to society, the only responsibility common to
all criminals, exists also for criminals of unsound mind.

Nor, again, is it correct to say, with M. Bianchi, that mad
criminals should be referred to psychiatry, and not to criminal
anthropology; for, though psychiatry is concerned with mad
criminals in a psycho-pathological sense, this does not prevent
criminal anthropology and sociology from also concerning
themselves with the same subjects, in order to constitute the
natural history of the criminal, and to suggest remedies in the
interest of society.
As for criminals of unsound mind, it is necessary to begin by
placing in a separate category such as cannot, after the studies
of Lombroso and the Italian school of psychiatry, be distinguished
from the born criminals properly so-called. These are the persons
tainted with a form of insanity which is known under various
names, from the ``moral insanity'' of Pritchard to the ``reasoning
madness'' of Verga. Moral insanity, illustrated by the works of
Mendel, Legrand du Saulle, Maudsley, Krafft-Ebing, Savage, Hugues,
Hollander, Tamburini, Bonvecchiato, which, with the lack or atrophy of
the
moral or social sense, and of APPARENT soundness of mind, is properly
speaking only the essential psychological condition of the born criminal.

Beyond these morally insane people, who are very rare--for, as
Krafft-Ebing and Lombroso have pointed out, they are found more
frequently in prisons than in mad-houses--there is the unhappily
large body of persons tainted by a common and clinical form of
mental alienation, all of whom are apt to become criminal.

The whole of these criminals of unsound mind cannot be included in
a single category; and such, indeed, is the opinion expressed by
Lombroso, in the second volume of the fourth edition of his work,
after his descriptive analysis of the chief forms of mental
alienation. As a matter of fact, not only are the organic, and
especially the psychological, characteristics of criminal madmen
sometimes identical with and sometimes opposed to those of born
and occasional criminals, but these very characteristics vary
considerably between the different forms of mental alienation, in
spite of the identity of the crime committed.

It is further to be observed, in respect of criminal madmen, that
this category also includes all the intermediary types between
complete madness and a rational condition, who remain in what
Maudsley has called the ``middle zone. '' The most frequent
varieties in the criminality of these partially insane persons, or
``mattoides,'' are the perpetrators of attacks upon
statesmen, who are generally men with a grievance, irascible men,
writers of insane documents, and the like, such as Passanante,
Guiteau, and Maclean.

In the same category are those who commit terrible crimes without
motive, and who nevertheless, according to the complacent
psychology of the classical school, would be credited with a
maximum of moral soundness.

Again, there are the necrophiles, like Sergeant Bertrand, Verzeni,
Menesclou, and very probably the undetected ``Jack the Ripper'' of
London, who are tainted with a form of sexual psychopathy. Yet
again there are such as are tainted with hereditary madness, and
especially the epileptics and epileptoids, who may also be
assigned to the class of born criminals, according to the
plausible hypothesis of Lombroso as to the fundamental identity of
congenital criminality, moral madness, and epilepsy. I have
always found in my own experience that outrageous murders, not to
be explained according to the ordinary psychology of criminals,
are accompanied by psychical epilepsy, or larvea.


Born or instinctive criminals are those who most frequently
present the organic and psychological characteristics established
by criminal anthropology. These are either savage or brutal men,
or crafty and idle, who draw no distinction between homicide,
robbery or other kinds of crime, and honest industry. ``They are
criminals just as others are good workingmen,'' says Fregier;
and, as Romagnosi put it, actual punishment affects them
much less than the menace of punishment, or does not affect them
at all, since they regard imprisonment as a natural risk of their
occupation, as masons regard the fall of a roof, or as miners
regard fire-damp. ``They do not suffer in prison. They are like
a painter in his studio, dreaming of their next masterpiece. They
are on good terms with their gaolers, and even know how to make
themselves useful. ''[5]


[5] Moreau, ``Souvenirs de la petite et grande Roquette,'' Paris,
1884, ii. 440.



The born criminals and the occasional criminals constitute the
majority of the characteristic and diverse types of homicide and
thief. Prison governors call them ``gaol-birds. '' They pass on
from the police to the judge and to the prison, and from the
prison to the police and to the judge, with a regularity which has
not yet impaired the faith of law-makers in the efficacy of
punishment as a cure for crime. [6]


[6] Wayland, ``The Incorrigible,'' in the Journal of Mental
Science, 1888. Sichart, ``Criminal Incorrigibles. ''



No doubt the idea of a born criminal is a direct challenge to the
traditional belief that the conduct of every man is the outcome of
his free will, or at most of his lack of education rather than of
his original physio-psychical constitution. But, in the first
place, even public opinion, when not prejudiced in favour of the
so-called consequences of irresponsibility, recognises in many
familiar and everyday cases that there are criminals who, without
being mad, are still not as ordinary men; and the reporters call
them ``human tigers,'' ``brutes,'' and the like. And in the
second place, the scientific proofs of these hereditary
tendencies to crime, even apart from the clinical forms of
mental alienation, are now so numerous that it is useless to
insist upon them further.

The third class is that of the criminals whom, after my prison
experience, I have called criminals by contracted habit. These
are they who, not presenting the anthropological characteristics
of the born criminals, or presenting them but slightly, commit
their first crime most commonly in youth, or even in childhood--
almost invariably a crime against property, and far more through
moral weakness, induced by circumstances and a corrupting
environment, than through inborn and active tendencies. After
this, as M. Joly observes, either they are led on by the impunity
of their first offences, or, more decisively, prison associations
debilitate and corrupt them, morally and physically, the cell
degrades them, alcoholism renders them stupid and subject to
impulse, and they continually fall back into crime, and become
chronically prone to it. And society, which thus abandons them,
before and after they leave their prison, to wretchedness,
idleness, and temptations, gives them no assistance in their
struggle to gain an honest livelihood, even when it does not
thrust them back into crime by harassing police regulations, which
prevent them from finding or keeping honest employment. [7]


[7] Fliche, ``Comment en devient Criminel,'' Paris, 1886.



Of those criminals who begin by being occasional criminals, and
end, after progressive degeneration, by exhibiting the features of
the born criminals, Thomas More said, ``What is this but to make
thieves for the pleasure of hanging them? '' And it is just
this class of criminals whom measures of social prevention might
reduce to a minimum, for by abolishing the causes we abolish the
effects.

Apart from their organic and psychological characteristics, innate
or acquired, there are two bio-sociological symptoms which seem to
me to be common, though for distinct reasons, to born criminals
and habitual criminals. I mean precocity and relapse. The
occasional crime and the crime of passion do not, as a rule, occur
before manhood, and rarely or never lead to relapse.

Here are a few figures concerning precocity, derived from
international prison statistics:--


PRISONERS UNDER 20 YEARS OF AGE. Male. Female.
__________________________________________________________________
p. c. p. c.
Italy (1871--6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. 8 6. 8
France ('72-5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. 6
Prussia ('71-7--not over 19 years) . . . . . . . . . 2. 8 2. 6
Austria ('72-5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. 6 10. 6
Hungary ('72-6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. 2 9
England ('72-7 )--not over 24) . . . . . . . . . . . . 27. 4 14. 8
Scotland ('72-7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 7. 8
Ireland ('72-7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .